A law firm conflict check process has one job: show, before the firm takes on work, that it has identified every person and interest involved and decided on the record whether it may act. A green tick on a search screen does not do that. The record should show which parties were searched, which sources were checked, who reviewed each hit, which rule applied, what consent or screen was used and when the check must be repeated.
The ABA treats this as a duty, not a nice-to-have. Comment [3] to Model Rule 1.7 says a lawyer should adopt reasonable procedures, appropriate for the size and type of firm and practice, to determine the persons and issues involved, and that ignorance caused by a failure to institute such procedures will not excuse a violation. Model Rule 5.1(a) requires partners and lawyers with comparable managerial authority to make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm has measures in place so that all its lawyers conform to the rules. Its Comment [2] names policies and procedures "designed to detect and resolve conflicts of interest" as one example.
A note on sources. This guide cites the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which the ABA says serve as models for the ethics rules of most jurisdictions. Your state's own rules bind you, and their wording may differ from the Model Rules. Check your state's text before you rely on any point below.
Which ABA Model Rules shape a conflict check?
Map each rule to what the check must capture. This keeps the intake form and the review screen tied to the actual tests.
| Model Rule | What it covers | What the check must capture |
|---|---|---|
| 1.7 | Concurrent conflicts: direct adversity to another client, or a significant risk of material limitation | Every current client, adverse party and the lawyer's own interests |
| 1.8 | Specific current-client rules, including payment by a third party under 1.8(f) | Who pays the fees; business dealings with the client |
| 1.9 | Former clients in the same or a substantially related matter | Closed matters, with enough subject detail to judge relatedness |
| 1.10 | Imputation of conflicts across the firm, and screening of laterals | Each lawyer's prior firm matters, and any screens in place |
| 1.18 | Prospective clients who consulted but did not retain the firm | Declined and dormant prospects, and what each disclosed |
| 1.0 | Definitions of "informed consent", "confirmed in writing" and "screened" | Consent and screen records that meet those definitions |
Rule 1.8(k) matters for the search design: while lawyers are associated in a firm, a prohibition in 1.8(a) through (i) that applies to one of them applies to all of them.
What party information should intake collect?
Comment [2] to Rule 1.7 sets out four steps, and the first is to "clearly identify the client or clients". Everything else depends on that. Asking only for "client" and "opposing party" misses most of the names that cause trouble.
| Relationship | Examples | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Proposed client | The exact legal entity or person engaging the firm | Rule 1.7 Comment [2], step one |
| Adverse parties | Opposing parties, counterparties, targets | Direct adversity under Rule 1.7(a)(1) |
| Affiliates | Parent, subsidiaries, sister companies of client and adverse party | Comment [34]: representing a company does not necessarily mean representing its affiliates, but an affiliate may need to be treated as a client in some circumstances |
| Payer | Insurer, parent company, employer or other third party paying fees | Rule 1.8(f) and Comment [13] |
| Individuals | Officers, directors, key witnesses | Comment [6]: cross-examining a client who is a witness can be directly adverse |
| Co-parties | Co-plaintiffs, co-defendants, joint venturers | Comment [23]: their interests can conflict even when aligned against an opponent |
| Other counsel | Lawyers on the other side who are close relatives of firm lawyers | Comment [11] |
Keep the name as supplied, then add former names, trade names and spelling variants as separate search values. Record the role of each name in the matter.
Limit what you collect before clearance. Rule 1.18(b) says that even when no client-lawyer relationship follows, a lawyer who has learned information from a prospective client must not use or reveal it except as Rule 1.9 would permit. Under Rule 1.18(d)(2), the firm's ability to screen later depends partly on whether the lawyer took reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to decide whether to take the matter. Intake staff need names, roles and a neutral matter description, not the client's story.
How should the firm run the search?
Set the approved sources in firm policy: open and closed matters, client and prospect records, billing entities, the conflicts index and prior decisions. Then run the same protocol every time:
| Search term | Source | Filters | What the reviewer checks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exact legal name | All approved sources | All statuses | Is this the same entity? |
| Former and trade names | Client and matter records | Current and closed | Date of name change |
| Name fragments | Conflicts index | Practice area, jurisdiction | Remove obvious false matches |
| Affiliates and individuals | Relationship records | Role | Nature of the link |
| Lateral hires' prior matters | Lateral disclosure records | Hire date | Possible Rule 1.9(b) issues |
Fuzzy matching helps find candidates, but it does not decide anything. Show the reviewer why each result matched, the matter status, the responsible lawyer and the dates. Keep the original search terms so a later re-check is reproducible.
How should the reviewer analyze each hit?
Separate searching from judgment. An intake coordinator assembles results. A designated lawyer applies the rules. The questions differ by type of hit.
| Hit type | Question to answer | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| Current client is adverse | Is the new matter directly adverse to it, even if unrelated? | 1.7(a)(1) and Comment [6] |
| Current client is only an economic competitor | Comment [6] says this does not ordinarily create a conflict in unrelated matters | 1.7, Comment [6] |
| Former client | Same or substantially related matter, and materially adverse interests? | 1.9(a) |
| Former client of a lateral's prior firm | Did the lawyer acquire protected information material to the matter? | 1.9(b), 1.10(a)(2) |
| Prospective client | Did the firm receive information that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter? | 1.18(c) |
| Lawyer's own interest | Is there a significant risk of material limitation? | 1.7(a)(2), 1.10(a)(1) |
If a conflict exists, Comment [2] gives the remaining steps: decide whether the conflict is consentable and, if so, consult the affected clients and obtain informed consent, confirmed in writing. Comment [3] adds that if the conflict exists before the representation starts, the firm must decline unless it obtains that consent.
When can a client consent, and how should it be documented?
Rule 1.7(b) permits the representation despite a concurrent conflict only if all four conditions hold: the lawyer reasonably believes they can provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; the representation is not prohibited by law; it does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client the lawyer represents in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. Consent cannot cure a failure of the first three conditions: Comments [15] to [17] treat those conflicts as nonconsentable, and Comment [23] says (b)(3) applies regardless of the clients' consent.
Rule 1.0 defines the key terms:
- Informed consent (1.0(e)) is agreement after the lawyer has communicated adequate information and explanation about the material risks of, and reasonably available alternatives to, the proposed course of conduct.
- Confirmed in writing (1.0(b)) means consent given in writing by the person, or a writing the lawyer promptly sends confirming an oral consent. If that is not feasible at the time, it must follow within a reasonable time.
Some rules ask for more. Comment [7] to Rule 1.0 points out that Rules 1.8(a) and (g) require consent in a writing signed by the client.
Treat advance waivers with care. Comment [22] to Rule 1.7 says a general, open-ended consent will ordinarily be ineffective, while consent to a particular type of conflict the client already understands ordinarily will be effective for that type. It also says advance consent cannot be effective if the conflict that later arises would be nonconsentable.
A consent record should hold:
- the conflict described in plain terms, with the rule it falls under;
- the reviewer's note on why it is consentable;
- what was explained about risks and alternatives, and when;
- each affected client's consent, in writing or confirmed in writing;
- any signed-writing requirement under Rule 1.8; and
- limits on scope, and what would end the consent.
When does a screen help, and how should it be built?
Rule 1.0(k) defines "screened" as isolating a lawyer from any participation in a matter through the timely imposition of procedures within a firm that are reasonably adequate to protect information the isolated lawyer must protect. Comment [8] to Rule 1.0 says this applies where screening is permitted to remove imputation under Rules 1.10, 1.11, 1.12 or 1.18.
Under the Model Rules, a screen does not cure every conflict. Rule 1.10(a)(2) allows one for a conflict under Rule 1.9(a) or (b) that arises from a lawyer's association with a prior firm, and only if:
- the lawyer is timely screened and is apportioned no part of the fee;
- written notice is promptly given to the affected former client, describing the screen and including the statements the rule lists; and
- certifications of compliance are provided by the screened lawyer and a partner, at reasonable intervals on the former client's written request and when the screen ends.
Rule 1.18(d)(2) has its own screening route for prospective clients. A concurrent conflict between two current clients is handled under Rule 1.7, not by a screen. Confirm what your state's version of Rule 1.10 allows before you rely on a screen.
Comment [9] to Rule 1.0 lists measures that may be appropriate: a written undertaking by the screened lawyer, written instructions to other firm personnel, denial of access to files including electronic information, and periodic reminders. Comment [10] says screening must be implemented as soon as practical after the firm knows or reasonably should know it is needed, so set file access controls before the matter opens.
How should the decision be recorded?
Avoid one checkbox labeled "cleared". Use states that show where the matter is and who owns the next step.
| State | Meaning | Next action |
|---|---|---|
| Data incomplete | Parties or relationships missing | Back to intake owner |
| Search complete | Results assembled | Route to reviewing lawyer |
| Review pending | Analysis or client contact outstanding | Block matter opening |
| Cleared | No conflict found | Continue intake |
| Cleared with consent | Consent obtained and filed | Attach consent record |
| Cleared with screen | Screen and notices in place | Confirm access controls and notice dates |
| Declined | Firm will not act | Close intake; keep record of what was learned |
| Re-check required | Facts changed | Repeat the defined steps |
The matter system should enforce the gate. Any override should be rare, restricted to named people and logged. For approval routing in general, see the contract approval matrix guide for how to set approval levels and record who signed off.
When should a conflict check be re-run?
A cleared check is only as good as the facts it used. Comment [5] to Rule 1.7 gives the example of a company sued for one client that is then bought by another client, and names changes in corporate affiliations and the addition or realignment of parties as sources of conflicts in the middle of a representation. Comment [4] says that if a conflict arises after the representation starts, the lawyer ordinarily must withdraw unless the client gives informed consent under Rule 1.7(b).
Set triggers so nobody has to remember:
- a new party, affiliate, witness or co-party joins the matter;
- a party is acquired, merges or changes its name;
- a new payer appears;
- the scope expands to a new transaction or proceeding;
- a lateral lawyer joins the firm; and
- a declined or dormant prospect returns.
Log each re-check as a new event linked to the original. Do not overwrite the earlier decision.
Conflict check checklist for US firms
- The client is precisely identified, including the entity and any affiliates the firm treats as clients.
- Adverse parties, payers, co-parties and key individuals are captured by role.
- Intake collected no more prospective-client information than needed.
- Searches covered every approved source, and the terms are saved.
- Each hit has a reviewing lawyer, the rule applied and an outcome.
- Consents meet Rule 1.0(b) and (e), and any signed-writing requirement.
- Screens meet your state's version of Rule 1.10 or 1.18, with notices sent.
- Re-check triggers are set on the matter.
When a reviewer needs to research how your state's courts treat a conflict question, record the authorities in a legal research memo. Firms with offices in England and Wales should read the UK version of this guide, because the SRA framework works differently. Gotham lets US legal teams research federal and state case law, the U.S. Code and federal regulations, review contracts at scale and draft in Word, in one workspace. Every answer cites the passage it relies on.
Questions about conflict checks at US law firms
What does ABA Model Rule 1.7 require before a lawyer can act despite a conflict?
Rule 1.7(b) allows the representation only if the lawyer reasonably believes they can give competent and diligent representation to each affected client, the representation is not prohibited by law, it does not involve one client asserting a claim against another client the lawyer represents in the same litigation or proceeding before a tribunal, and each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. Check your state's version of the rule.
Can a law firm use an ethical screen to avoid a conflict?
Under Model Rule 1.10(a)(2), a screen can stop a lateral lawyer's former-client conflict under Rule 1.9(a) or (b) from being imputed to the new firm, if the lawyer is timely screened, gets no part of the fee, written notice goes promptly to the former client and certifications are provided as the rule requires. Rule 1.18(d) allows a similar route for prospective clients. A screen does not cure a concurrent conflict between current clients. Check your state's version of Rule 1.10 before relying on a screen.
Do we need to run conflicts on prospective clients?
Yes. Under Model Rule 1.18, a lawyer who learns information from a prospective client must not use or reveal it except as Rule 1.9 allows, and may be barred from acting against that person in the same or a substantially related matter. Collect only the information you need to run the check until the firm has cleared it.
When should a law firm re-run a conflict check?
Re-run it whenever the party or scope picture changes: a new party, a realigned party, a corporate acquisition or name change, a new payer, an expanded scope or a lateral hire. Comment [5] to Model Rule 1.7 notes that changes in corporate affiliations and the addition or realignment of parties can create conflicts in the middle of a representation.
